Q5.)For new leader: Improved employee relation, new ideas( Diversification) Used ansoffs matrix
Against New Leader: Hard to adapt to a new culture.
Used Relevant football examples such as David Moyes, Claudio Ranieri as I didn't want to lie about other examples.
Is this ok?

(Original post by Narutoss)
i think it is i did something very similar too but i also talked about how new leadership can cause culture resistance leading to higher cost etc

Hmmm, I'm not too sure how relevant what I wrote was. I spoke a lot about Stephen Elop and Nokia saying that he was a bad change of leader (think that was okay) but then linked his retrenchment plan to poor motivation and used some motivation theorists because of the redundancies. I'm wondering if thats too focused on retrenchment rather than leadership, I said something about how Elop's new strategy as a new leader was to retrench, this caused a poor culture that lacked innovation and resulted in poor motivation. What do you think?

(Original post by BJO97)
Well not exactly that obviously, there are different ways you can approach it not just one way..

That was just an example. All my point is, is that your answer needs to be focused on whether or not businesses should have e-commerce as the main focus of their future strategies. If you've used points that answer that question, then you'll be fine. It's only if you wrote an answer referring to how e-commerce has been successful in the past and not related it to new developments that'll cause issues.

(Original post by jelsom)
Hmmm, I'm not too sure how relevant what I wrote was. I spoke a lot about Stephen Elop and Nokia saying that he was a bad change of leader (think that was okay) but then linked his retrenchment plan to poor motivation and used some motivation theorists because of the redundancies. I'm wondering if thats too focused on retrenchment rather than leadership, I said something about how Elop's new strategy as a new leader was to retrench, this caused a poor culture that lacked innovation and resulted in poor motivation. What do you think?

i think it be alright but did you at least talk about the word new in your conclusion... also what question did you do in section a

(Original post by ryanroks1)
That was just an example. All my point is, is that your answer needs to be focused on whether or not businesses should have e-commerce as the main focus of their future strategies. If you've used points that answer that question, then you'll be fine. It's only if you wrote an answer referring to how e-commerce has been successful in the past and not related it to new developments that'll cause issues.

(Original post by Narutoss)
i think it be alright but did you at least talk about the word new in your conclusion... also what question did you do in section a

Yeah think my conclusion was fine, just hoping my points were all relevant! I did question 1. Just spoke about how price transparency is good for consumers and bad for shareholders because it favours a low cost strategy. Then I used a pretty general paragraph on just eat and how it allows for more consumer choice, whilst it's bad for shareholders of small businesses who feel forced to use the website. concluded with some stuff about how one businesses threat is another opportunity and about how some shareholders have certainly benefited from e commerce. Think that question went fine, what one did you do?

I talked about the pace of innovation and technological advancement continually increasing. It is creating more and more substitute opportunities in almost all industries providing a great way for businesses to gain competitive advantage. It's likely all the future growth opportunities are going to be in some way linked to e-commerce, and if businesses fail to focus their future strategies to take advantage of this, it's unlikely they'll sustain lasting success.

My other plus point was that customers are increasingly expecting businesses to offer e-commerce and with 14% increase year on year, and even higher estimates predicted, it's clear that consumers value businesses utilising e-commerce. If a strategy fails to put this at its core, then surely when this growth continues, businesses will be unable to fully meets the needs and requirements of consumers and wider society, putting them at a rather noncompetitive position in the long-term.

My argument against was a bit weaker. I said how in some industries, e-commerce growth is slowing and contrasted Primark who is continuing to employ a strategy focused on cost leadership with ASOS who has recently encountered financial strain. With Primark experiencing growth and ASOS financial worry, then surely there's an argument that not all businesses should focus their attention to e-commerce in the future and Primark's current strategy which works well for low-cost items is continuing to work well - why change?

I did Q1 and Q4 did 4 as I like a question with success cause you can just talk about profits etc and I disagreed with the statement and used ecommerce as my counter arguments and used the text from section A to help with section B. Now thats what you call smart thinking

(Original post by Crozzer24)
How did everyone find it? Thought it was a dream, question 1 and 4! Does anyone know if policies like the sugar tax are classed as application? Only problem with 4 was I found it hard to use example businesses

Yeah I did Q4 too hard for examples but used 5p bags etc and for against I said about ecommerce and used ASOS text from section A said as ecommerce grows 14% ASOS benefit from this and use this be successful and improve disturbtion

Writing a crap ton won't lead to the examiners really not feeling like marking it right? I reeeaaallly explored too many things in both q2 and q5. A lot of technical stuff and application of both research and theories though.

Also, did we have to be really balanced in our arguments? I tried to be but not to a great extent. The tutor2u section B essays showed many essays with 2 paragraphs being pro question statement and just one against multiple time.

(Original post by Caius Filimon)
Writing a crap ton won't lead to the examiners really not feeling like marking it right? I reeeaaallly explored too many things in both q2 and q5. A lot of technical stuff and application of both research and theories though.

Also, did we have to be really balanced in our arguments? I tried to be but not to a great extent. The tutor2u section B essays showed many essays with 2 paragraphs being pro question statement and just one against multiple time.

About the quality more than anything. But 2 for and 1 against is fine assuming they're to a high standard.

(Original post by ryanroks1)
I talked about the pace of innovation and technological advancement continually increasing. It is creating more and more substitute opportunities in almost all industries providing a great way for businesses to gain competitive advantage. It's likely all the future growth opportunities are going to be in some way linked to e-commerce, and if businesses fail to focus their future strategies to take advantage of this, it's unlikely they'll sustain lasting success.

My other plus point was that customers are increasingly expecting businesses to offer e-commerce and with 14% increase year on year, and even higher estimates predicted, it's clear that consumers value businesses utilising e-commerce. If a strategy fails to put this at its core, then surely when this growth continues, businesses will be unable to fully meets the needs and requirements of consumers and wider society, putting them at a rather noncompetitive position in the long-term.

My argument against was a bit weaker. I said how in some industries, e-commerce growth is slowing and contrasted Primark who is continuing to employ a strategy focused on cost leadership with ASOS who has recently encountered financial strain. With Primark experiencing growth and ASOS financial worry, then surely there's an argument that not all businesses should focus their attention to e-commerce in the future and Primark's current strategy which works well for low-cost items is continuing to work well - why change?

Similar counter argument, also went into different markets having different standpoints on it's level of importance, small florists won't benefit from E-Commerce because of their target market or even Zimma frame manufacturers as such.

(Original post by DannyMorris7)
Similar counter argument, also went into different markets having different standpoints on it's level of importance, small florists won't benefit from E-Commerce because of their target market or even Zimma frame manufacturers as such.